Curiosity

Roke · Post by **Roke** » Sun May 04, 2003 6:03 pm

The CIA were convicted and found guilty in the Supreme Court of Canada, the same court that needs absolute proof of everything.

Grant Herion · Post by **Grant Herion** » Sun May 04, 2003 6:03 pm

when was this? because if this was true, your government would be hating us, but you don't seem to hate us much.

martin · Post by **martin** » Sun May 04, 2003 6:11 pm

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

This is quite a reliable source. You can check the media reports on each and every incident they listed. As it uses different sources for single events, it's quite accurate.

However, I am sure the US media show the truth and nothing but the truth. That is why they never showed the videotape where you see this tank fireing at the hotel Palestine, where the internationl journalists stayed. First, army officials stated that someone fired from this hotel at the tank. This was disproved by the videotape. Then they told that someone might have seen a telescope on the roof of the hotel and that everyone in the world but the US army knew that all journalists in bagdad stayed in this hotel. Anyway, one journalist is dead, one is badly injured. What will the US courts do about this incident? Nothing I guess.

Did you hear about that incident?

Martin

Roke · Post by **Roke** » Sun May 04, 2003 6:13 pm

We forgave you for something you did, seeing how our two countries have been almost like family for such a long time. Friends do forgive each other, for things that were done and were not done. Although it may not happen immediatly, it usually happens. Sometimes it takes a drastic event for forgiveness to happen, which is sad. I'm not saying you should neccesarily forgive Hussein for what he did, but the people of your country who are mad at Canada for not participating in the war should get away from all these boycotts, seeing how we are a sovreign nation and are able to make choices on our own.

Gro'bul · Post by **Gro'bul** » Sun May 04, 2003 6:23 pm

martin, the us media showed the "tapes", they also consulted retired army members and they said that these were probobly staged. nobody still answered my question. How many more people of his own would saddam have to kill before you did anything about it?who said we were mad at canada or boycotting them? i have many canadien friends.

James · Post by **James** » Sun May 04, 2003 8:17 pm

19/20 taking gcse geography at a a/b border line an im 16

paul laffing · Post by **paul laffing** » Mon May 05, 2003 3:35 am

Roke wrote:And the American Government is any more trustworthy? This is the government who's CIA was found guilty of using halucinogenic drugs on Canadians, experimenting with mind control.

Haha!

French Canadians got what they deserved!

Roke · Post by **Roke** » Mon May 05, 2003 4:11 am

And racist comments like that is exactly why so many people dislike Americans... even the nice ones who do not make those inappropriate, racist comments.

martin · Post by **martin** » Mon May 05, 2003 8:34 am

Gro'bul wrote:martin, the us media showed the "tapes", they also consulted retired army members and they said that these were probobly staged.

I do not believe them. You know why?
If you had read the chronology of the statements given by US army officials, you'd know. There were 4 different stages, one after the other, the last one telling us that there was NO gunfire from the hotel and that it was an accident. Each of the statements contradicted the others. Each were claimed to be true (by US army officials!).

Don't tell my something about retired army members.

nobody still answered my question. How many more people of his own would saddam have to kill before you did anything about it?who said we were mad at canada or boycotting them? i have many canadien friends.

He didn't kill them directly. There were imprisoners etc., that's true.
But, be honest: The US didn't give a damn shit about the people of iraq. Otherwise they would have given the 2 million inhabitants of bashra water instead of letting them die of thirst. If they would care about the iraqis, they would have protected the childrens hospitals and not the ministry for oil. If they would care about the people of iraq, why did they *intentionally* kill civilians? Why did they shoot children? Just let me know.

Saddam is quite a bad guy, no question, and the sooner he's gone the better. But there would have been many different ways to achieve that, the latest of them should be war.

Martin

Gro'bul · Post by **Gro'bul** » Mon May 05, 2003 9:14 am

well i dont know when they said they accidentally shot the hotel. by the way, i wouldnt personally try to give water to people who were shooting at me. besides, the british were the ones who liberated basra. not blaming them, but i think your information about people intentionally shooting defensless children is simple, ITS WRONG. he didnt kill his own people directly? i wouldnt doubt if hes killed people himself. what about this mass graveyard the locals tipped troops off to?imprisonment? he cant afford than when hes buying solid gold ak47's and druganovs. they did look pretty cool. i dont think its too smart to try to protect somewhere you can get shot, especially when you can prevent a natural disaster from occuring.then again who gives a damn about the envirnment, not like we'll be around to see it dead. theres two angles you can look at this. america is bad , or america is good. either way people die. this way saddam would have less of a chance to build up more forces and murder more people.

martin · Post by **martin** » Mon May 05, 2003 10:01 am

Gro'bul wrote:well i dont know when they said they accidentally shot the hotel.

About 2 weeks ago.

by the way, i wouldnt personally try to give water to people who were shooting at me.

I am nearly at the point where I start using the F-word.

Please turn on your brain. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT CIVILIANS, YOU D*** I****. ABOUT CHILDREN, ABOUT INJURED PEOPLE IN HOSPITALS, ABOUT OLD AND ILL PEOPLE, ABOUT USUAL PEOPLE, NOT ABOUT SOLDIERS.

besides, the british were the ones who liberated basra. not blaming them, but i think your information about people intentionally shooting defensless children is simple, ITS WRONG.

It is not wrong, it is true.

28. April 2003, outside a school in Fallujah, 50km west of Baghdad: US soldiers shoot anout 13 demonstrators, including pre-teen children (according to CNN, Reuters, Public Broadcasting Service (USA) and Agence France-Presse

19. April 2003, Baghdad. 3 children died by a US cluster bomb (Arab news, The Independent (London))

26. March, Rutbah. Allied forces bomb a childrens hospital, 2 dead. (San Fancisco Chronicle, Associated Press)

I remember an incident in march when US soldiers fired at a car, killing two little children (their dad survived).

What is it you want to tell me?

Martin

Gro'bul · Post by **Gro'bul** » Mon May 05, 2003 10:10 am

funny all those things about people getting killed were accidents,i said INTENTIONAL, sure then intentionally shot AT them,but besides the demonstrators,i doubt they killed any civilians on purpose. then again i dont blame them for having an itchy trigger finger. lets see you almost get killed in scorching desert heat and take kindly to protesting and probobly throwing rocks and things at you? listening to you you'd probobly do the same. did they have guns? turn on my brain? take your advice, soldiers were in the city. also hear about the shooting when some people in the university started shooting at troops in baghdad.there arent just people around the city. i guess what i meant to say is, would you want to walk through a city having bullets fly at you to give water to some people you dont care ever existed? i highly doubt it.

Albernon · Post by **Albernon** » Mon May 05, 2003 11:04 am

martin wrote:They were not killed by a terrorists attack, but by a foreign government, the USA. So we have about 2000 innocents killed in oth incidents, one time by badass terrorists, the other time by a government. (And I am not talking about killed soldiers, which were MUCH more than that...)

You decide which incident you like more: Terrorists killing people or a government doing that.

I like the second one more, because both led to suffering, but only the second one led to the liberation of a country and oil for another, and removal of possible weapons of mass destruction threat.

martin wrote:Saddam is quite a bad guy, no question, and the sooner he's gone the better. But there would have been many different ways to achieve that, the latest of them should be war.

I would love to hear what are some of these ways and why nobody had ever attempted them.

martin wrote:28. April 2003, outside a school in Fallujah, 50km west of Baghdad: US soldiers shoot anout 13 demonstrators, including pre-teen children (according to CNN, Reuters, Public Broadcasting Service (USA) and Agence France-Presse

19. April 2003, Baghdad. 3 children died by a US cluster bomb (Arab news, The Independent (London))

26. March, Rutbah. Allied forces bomb a childrens hospital, 2 dead. (San Fancisco Chronicle, Associated Press)

I remember an incident in march when US soldiers fired at a car, killing two little children (their dad survived).

So, what do you think was the purpose of doing all this *intentionally*?
I buy the warfare psychology theory. Something like the scorching desert and *unfriendly* protesters.
I don't think they care about the civilians in enemy territory any more or any less than any other army of soldiers would in that situation.

Maybe the US government just wanted the oil, but what matters to me is the result. When I see the people celebrating in the streets of Bagdad, then there are at least some who understand there will be sacrafices and innocent deaths to free them from Saddam. Maybe Saddam doesn't have those chem/bio weapons, but I'm happy to make sure such a *lunatic* doesn't have it. Maybe the US has some too, but I like my chances that I won't be hit by them.

What I see as a result of this war, is oil for America, reduction of threat from a madman, and liberation for a country after a quick suffering instead of a long suffering with no end in sight.

Some were sacraficed for the greater good, and isn't that always the story? I have difficulty to philosophize whether or not or how much sacrifice of the minority for the majority is considered "right" or "wrong".
In this situation, I consider it "right" at this point in time, but not strongly.

martin · Post by **martin** » Mon May 05, 2003 12:52 pm

Gro'bul wrote:funny all those things about people getting killed were accidents,i said INTENTIONAL, sure then intentionally shot AT them,but besides the demonstrators,i doubt they killed any civilians on purpose.

I just mentioned cases involving children.

Embedded journalists reportet that they shot at civilians when they entered small villages which they used to pass by. They killed some of them by a shot of a tank and watched out who was fleeing and who not; the ones who remained where they are were fighters (in the allied eyes) and were killed too.
There are multiple reports about such and similar incidents.

What you are doing in the rest of your posting is a very, very terrible thing: searching for reasons why civilians, human beings, were killed, trying to justify their deaths. Disgusting.

@Albernon:

So what you are trying to say is, that a government is allowed to kill whereas terrorists are not. If governments kill innocent, it's just, if others do it, it's a bad, bad terroristic act? When others do it, they are imprisoned, when a government does it, it's good?

I would love to hear what are some of these ways and why nobody had ever attempted them.

What's that?!?!
I know that the US gives a damn shit about the united nations, but I thought it is known outside the white house that they put a lot of efforts in that topic?

When I see the people celebrating in the streets of Bagdad, then there are at least some who understand there will be sacrafices and innocent deaths to free them from Saddam. Maybe Saddam doesn't have those chem/bio weapons, but I'm happy to make sure such a *lunatic* doesn't have it.

Sure they will and this is the "nice" part of the action, I do not doubt that. Anyway, they ask questions, like I do, e.g. if they only wanted to hel the iraqi people, why the hell was the ministry of oil more important than (childrens) hospitals? I understand them if they are very, very angry.

Maybe the US has some too, but I like my chances that I won't be hit by them.

MAYBE?
Why is it that all of you formulate that as if it wasn't sure? There is not a single doubt about that.
Who is the only nation which ever used atomic bombs? The US did. It is well known that the USA still has atomic bombs. The US of A has huge amounts of biological and chemical weapons, a lot of them are forbidden by international law. (It's not that I do not care who has them, Saddam or Bush, but it's the fact that they are there!)

What I see as a result of this war, is oil for America,

Isn't that sad?
I mean, instead of helping these people they take what they have? They try to get profit out of a poor countries people?
Spread fear in the world, act against international law? Kill innocents? And what is it for literally in the first place? For oil.

War could have been avoided and it wasn't done. Therefore I consider it wrong.

Martin

Mishrack · Post by **Mishrack** » Mon May 05, 2003 1:40 pm

Also, interestingly enough US And Russia are the only places i nthe world where there are still small pox spores. (not sure its small pox.. its the ilness that was cured worldwide)
Now why would these two countries have spores of a horrible illness than has been ocmpletely irradicated? ah yes.. chemical weapons.
The difference though is that Russia is currently reducing it's stock, whereas ye o´lde great US is growing them...

Gro'bul · Post by **Gro'bul** » Mon May 05, 2003 7:18 pm

ever heard of biological research? albernon, do a little reading. anyone heard of the oil for food program? The US give billions in aid to other countries, we just spent around 72 billion on a war, ok so we give out more free stuff? i relize the UN is helping with food and medical things and thats good. Well as for journalists, i dont find any of them as a completely reliable source, theres always something they dont say. People wouldve died either way whether by war or saddam. I'de just rather we did it sooner then later that way less people had a chance of dieing. Dont forget, they had suicide bombers and iraqi militants dressed as civilians to worry about.

martin · Post by **martin** » Mon May 05, 2003 9:10 pm

You demand answers to your questions but do not give them yourself:
Why was the ministry of oil more important than childrens hospitals?

Martin

Gro'bul · Post by **Gro'bul** » Mon May 05, 2003 10:34 pm

hah, some hospitals, did you not hear? one of our pow was kept in a "hospital" a strong hold rather. To prevent a natural disaster which i already stated.

martin · Post by **martin** » Mon May 05, 2003 11:01 pm

This will sound arrogant, probably it is:
You are too stupid or too young to discuss this.
Therefore I will end this now.

Martin

Xerake · Post by **Xerake** » Mon May 05, 2003 11:18 pm

But Martin, I'm a wee lad! May I have a chance to defy or justify my stupidity?

Gro'bul · Post by **Gro'bul** » Tue May 06, 2003 12:23 am

too stupid and young? funny,no, its just you have a different perspective that is anti-USA and cant be changed. I know we have done some bad things, but you must relize nobody is perfect, so stop insisting that you are. Back down if you want to.

paul laffing · Post by **paul laffing** » Tue May 06, 2003 3:40 am

Roke wrote:And racist comments like that is exactly why so many people dislike Americans... even the nice ones who do not make those inappropriate, racist comments.

Maybe, if you weren't so blind, you were have seen my smilies. They are there to show something, not to be ignored by the ignorant.

paul laffing · Post by **paul laffing** » Tue May 06, 2003 3:55 am

martin wrote:(according to CNN, Reuters, Public Broadcasting Service (USA) and Agence France-Presse

Heh, look at your sources. CNN is evil and Public Broadcasting Service is leftist. And I guess the Agence France-Presse goes in the CNN category. Come to think about it, so does Reuters. Heh, these "embedded" newscasters are as embedded as ticks. I remember hearing something about a reporter who accidentally gave away troop locations, and the soldiers were angry and were shaking his hand... after putting their hands in, lets just say, unclean places.

Mishrack · Post by **Mishrack** » Tue May 06, 2003 3:57 am

You do realise that Reuters is widely acclaimed as the most credible News agency in the world? Where do you think whatever news broadcasts you follow come from?
Same goes for Agence France-Presse...

Gro'bul · Post by **Gro'bul** » Tue May 06, 2003 4:39 am

thats the point they are "creditable" not trustworthy. i guess i didnt mean back down, i meant have a discussion but if im so young why are you doing the name calling? just because your physically older doesnt mean your mentally older. (not speaky directly at martin)

paul laffing · Post by **paul laffing** » Tue May 06, 2003 5:03 am

Mishrack wrote:You do realise that Reuters is widely acclaimed as the most credible News agency in the world? Where do you think whatever news broadcasts you follow come from?
Same goes for Agence France-Presse...

Do you realize it is possible for News Agencies to rule to world? Think about it... *puts on his tin foil hat and locks himself in the closet*

Gro'bul · Post by **Gro'bul** » Tue May 06, 2003 5:49 am

Yes the news can twist and turn things however they want to, they can make it sound bad or they can make it sound good, whichever gives them the best ratings.

Grant Herion · Post by **Grant Herion** » Tue May 06, 2003 6:30 am

I think Fox News is the best cable new channel out there... Very fair and balanced... CNN the day the war started was not showing clips of Iraq, but instead were debating wether it was legal to attack Iraq or not, on the day the war started! Fox News' line up is great.

Niniane · Post by **Niniane** » Tue May 06, 2003 6:37 am

paul laffing wrote:Heh, look at your sources. CNN is evil and Public Broadcasting Service is leftist. And I guess the Agence France-Presse goes in the CNN category. Come to think about it, so does Reuters. Heh, these "embedded" newscasters are as embedded as ticks. I remember hearing something about a reporter who accidentally gave away troop locations, and the soldiers were angry and were shaking his hand... after putting their hands in, lets just say, unclean places.

Paul, the reporter they did this too works for Fox News and is named Geraldo Rivera. He is not a popular reporter with many people and after he gave away the troops location he did not improve his status with the people and a few troops claimed to have given him what you described. Fox News is one of the most opinionated and pro-USA news channels in the world. They have been labeled the Al Jezeera of the United States by many for their 'The US is absolutely right to do what they are doing and all who question us are terrorists!' attitude.

All news stations are going to be influenced by their location of operation for many reasons. The war extends beyond the battlefield and into the homes of every citizen with a TV or radio. Public opinion is a very powerful weapon in the world we live in today and you can see this in how each country is trying to make themselves seem to have done no wrong while others have committed the ultimate sin, by pointing out other countries flaws in this matter.

The Chinese government told the UN not to go to war because it was not justified. Iraq just happened to have some Chinese made surface-to-surface missiles (Silk-Worm I believe) that were sold to them recently.

The German government told the UN not to go to war because it was not justified. Iraq had purchased some air defense equipment from them recently and had German engineers in to repair said equipment months if not weeks before the war began.

The French said the war was not justified and we should continue to negotiate with Iraq. The French make billions of dollars each year with the oil for food program through Iraq so of course they didn't want to lose this.

Public relations wars in each of these countries would skirt over these topics when explaining the United States' role in the world and in this war. The US media of course made sure to over emphasize these points to the public to gain support for the war. Everything you hear you have to take with a grain of salt because in many cases it has the local 'twist' added to what it is you're being told.

Yes the US may have had ulterior motives for going to war that are not being told but the countries who were the main voice of opposition also had ulterior motives for not going to war that were NOT to prevent the loss of innocent lives. It was money. Past and future profits. This goes for both sides of the arguments. The US will find a way to make a profit from this war just as the opposition had found a way and wanted to continue doing so in secret by supplying supposedly banned weapons to Iraq according to treaties and such as well as taking advantage of their poor country and shipping them small amounts of cheap food in exchange for valuable oil.

martin wrote:28. April 2003, outside a school in Fallujah, 50km west of Baghdad: US soldiers shoot anout 13 demonstrators, including pre-teen children (according to CNN, Reuters, Public Broadcasting Service (USA) and Agence France-Press.

Our news stations showed video of this and there were bullet holes in the walls where the US soldiers were stationed. The US soldiers said they were fired upon from some of the demonstrators and responded fire. The bullet holes in the building were said to be 'fresh'. I'm not a forensics expert but I'm sure there are ways to tell this and they claimed to have done so. Yes it is terrible that innocent people lost their lives and nobody is trying to say that it's not a tragedy but it has happened and will continue to happen. Innocent people have been losing their lives all over the world since we came out of the trees and nothing will change this.

There is so much talk around here of all the innocent people the US soldiers have accidentally killed. Why not talk about all these mass graves that are being found of Iraqi citizens that were executed and dumped in the dirt or put in cardboard boxes and stacked in warehouses? There have been thousands of these dead found already and it is probably only the tip of the iceberg. Yes. The US has killed a lot who did not deserve to die but so did the Iraqi government. It's terrible! But you have to ask yourself. Is it better that a few thousand die now so that millions can live in peace in years to come or is it better to turn our back to the thousands who are dying already because we don't want the blood on our own hands? Somebody has to stand up for those who cannot themselves and the US did this. They did so in a way that was not perfect and we all agree on this. But they did it and it's not going to change. The blood IS on our hands now and it is the United States' duty to Iraq and to the world to rebuild that country and to prove that the gruesome war that we brought to their cities was not for nothing and that it was for the greater good. I have faith this will happen but it will take decades.

martin wrote:I remember an incident in march when US soldiers fired at a car, killing two little children (their dad survived).

There were car checkpoints set up by the invading US army to try and capture any officials trying to leave the cities as well as protect themselves for obvious reasons. Some suicide bombers were recruited or in some instanced forced to drive through these checkpoints with cars loaded with explosives and to kill the soldiers involved. There was one case where supposedly the families of some women and children were taken prisoner and the women and their children were placed in a van and told to drive through a checkpoint and not to stop in order to draw fire on themselves to make the US soldiers look as though they were trying to kill innocent civilians which would in turn raise moral within the country and inspire others to rise up against the soldiers, if they would not do so their families would be killed. What are these soldiers supposed to do when they have heard of their own friends being blown up by car bombs after someone had driven through the checkpoints and not stopped when told? They're going to stop these cars before they have a chance of getting harmed by them by using force. That is probably what happened in your example, Martin.

I know that the information we as Americans has is not the same as the information you have and I am not saying that what has happened was right. I don't believe everything I hear on the news without questioning its authenticity but I suggest others do the same. There is a lot of anti-American sentiment in the world and some is due to mindless acceptance to that which you are told. There is also a lot of 'The US can do no wrong' sentiment in this country because too many of us believe whatever we are told by the moving picture boxes in our living rooms. Everyone just needs to take a step back and think if what we are hearing is what really happened.

War is terrible but war is war and death is a part of war. A lot of bad things have happened but there have been a lot of good things that have and will continue to happen.

Gro'bul · Post by **Gro'bul** » Tue May 06, 2003 8:21 am

Well said. a saying for ya "you can only do your best, but nobody's best is perfect"